The intention in this case is obviously to evaluate the 'must' statement if
the container contains any values; what would break if we said that
A non-presence container exists in the data tree if and only if it has
any children which exist in the data tree.
thus disallowing the existence
Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> On 08/22/2016 06:45 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > I disagree. If the model needs to have some semantic validation
> > rules, the designer is going to put them in a place such that they are
> > evaluated when the need to be evaluated.
> So
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 07:21:06PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> On 08/22/2016 06:37 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 06:15:50PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> > > On 08/22/2016 06:10 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:59:37PM
On 08/22/2016 06:45 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
I disagree. If the model needs to have some semantic validation
rules, the designer is going to put them in a place such that they are
evaluated when the need to be evaluated.
So designers augmenting /interfaces/interface with non-presence
On 08/22/2016 06:37 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 06:15:50PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
On 08/22/2016 06:10 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:59:37PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
Which of the 3 issues pointed in the conclusion you
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 06:15:50PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> > On 08/22/2016 06:10 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:59:37PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev
Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> On 08/22/2016 03:36 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >> This example is based on the bug I propose to be fixed. If you looked
> >> at the patch I propose in
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg11637.html
> >> sec. 7.1.6 of
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 06:15:50PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> On 08/22/2016 06:10 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:59:37PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> >
> > > Which of the 3 issues pointed in the conclusion you don't agree with and
> > > why
> > > {1.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> On 08/22/2016 06:10 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:59:37PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
>>
>> Which of the 3 issues pointed in the conclusion you don't agree with and
>>>
On 08/22/2016 06:10 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:59:37PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
Which of the 3 issues pointed in the conclusion you don't agree with and why
{1. limited validation expression flexibility, 2. higher validation
workload, 3. broken NACM}?
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:59:37PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> Which of the 3 issues pointed in the conclusion you don't agree with and why
> {1. limited validation expression flexibility, 2. higher validation
> workload, 3. broken NACM}? Difficult to not agree with 2. And 1 is
>
On 08/22/2016 03:36 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
This example is based on the bug I propose to be fixed. If you looked at the
patch I propose in
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg11637.html sec. 7.1.6
of RFC 6020 is modified:
---
OLD:
7.6.1. The leaf's default value
Hi Dean,
3) With the model definition, even the acl-type is configured as Ethernet,
the operator still can configure the matches of ace under the acl as ipv4 or
ipv6, right?
No, if ACL type is ethernet, then all ACEs are expected to be ethernet.
[Adrian] I understand your point, but this is
> On 22 Aug 2016, at 14:56, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
>
> On 08/22/2016 01:56 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Vladimir Vassilev writes:
>>
>>> On 08/20/2016 10:29 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
As document shepherd, I believe there is no
On 08/22/2016 01:56 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Vladimir Vassilev writes:
On 08/20/2016 10:29 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
As document shepherd, I believe there is no strong agreement on the
problem and there is no concrete proposal with strong consensus for a
Vladimir Vassilev writes:
> On 08/20/2016 10:29 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>
>> As document shepherd, I believe there is no strong agreement on the
>> problem and there is no concrete proposal with strong consensus for a
>> modification of the document (which is
Dear Juergen Schoenwaelder,
On 08/22/2016 11:25 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 07:18:42PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
Hello,
I have strong objection to the text proposed as solution to issue #41:
Dear Vladimir Vassilev,
please note that we YANG 1.1 is in
(+netmod mailing list)
Adrian,
Please see inline
> On Aug 22, 2016, at 2:27 AM, Adrian Pan wrote:
>
> Dear authors,
>
> I have some questions about ietf acl model as below, your reply is
> appreciated.
>
> 1) In the model definition acl-type is one key of the
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 07:18:42PM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> On 08/20/2016 10:29 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >
> > As document shepherd, I believe there is no strong agreement on the
> > problem and there is no concrete proposal with strong consensus for a
> > modification of the
19 matches
Mail list logo